It's (usually) more complicated than that

Nov 28, 2011

Ethical Dilemmas

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

Ethics are hard.

The trolley problem is a thought experiment, though. No one has ever encountered it in real life. No one ever will. What about other questions?

Should one shop for chocolate at local stores that only sell products by Hershey and Mars and Nestlé, thus supporting companies uninterested in protecting the rights of cocoa farmers, or should one shop for chocolate at Fair Trade retailers online such as Divine Chocolate or Sweet Earth Chocolates, thus ensuring that none of the money stays in the local economy? One could do without chocolate entirely, but then it's that much harder for the employees of both the local stores and the Fair Trade stores to earn their livings, and also one has no chocolate.

Should one support international treaties to reduce carbon emissions, thus protecting the environment, or should one support international efforts to bring everyone up to the same standard of living, thus reducing privilege? One could support both, but how to industrialize nations without dumping mountains of soot into the air?

Should one contribute money to the local food bank, thus feeding the local hungry, or to water.org or the like, thus giving water to the worldwide thirsty? It's an either-or; a dollar given to one charity cannot go to another. It's possible to contribute to both charities, of course, but there are people suffering from malaria and AIDS and neglected tropical diseases. Which do thirsty people with leprosy need, water or medicine?

One can give and give until one has, like the woman in Mark 12 41–44, given all one has to give, but there will still be more need than one can answer, and then one will have neither food nor water nor medicine oneself. How will that help?

Ethics are hard, people.

And none of the above takes into consideration that ethics are, y'know, hard. I've written on this before. I can't ethically shop at Walmart, because they treat their female employees like crap and they keep prices down by paying their suppliers' employees hardly anything, and I can't ethically shop at IKEA, because they treat the US the way the US treats Thailand. There's a furniture shop conveniently located on South Main Street in the town where I live: it's owned by a family, not a corporation, and as far as I know it's entirely staffed by that family, so they have incentive to treat their employees right. But when I move into my own apartment, where will I be shopping for furniture? Walmart or IKEA, because a queen-sized bedstead costs $450 at the hometown furniture store and a comparable bedstead costs $150 at Walmart.

I don't have any answers. I wish I did. It would be so much easier that way.

The one thing I'm sure of is that it is possible—it is necessary—for ordinary reasonable prudent people to disagree on ethical issues.

Take the example of reducing carbon emissions versus raising standards of living. It is vitally important that carbon emissions be reduced. It is vitally important that people trying to live on 1 USD a day improve their standard of living. Which is more important—well, if I passionately argue one side, and Jane passionately argues the other, either we'll both get disgusted and walk away or we'll come to a conclusion somewhere in the middle. Maybe the solution is to gift solar panels to the villages of South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa—voila, electricity to people in need without raising carbon emissions more than necessary to make and transport the panels.

But we can only arrive at such a solution if all sides acknowledge that, hey, the other sides all have a point.

Contrast the current state of US politics. One side wants nothing to do with cutting carbon emissions. That's the same side that wants nothing to do with improving the lot of the poor in any country. That is not on. One side of US politics wants us to shop neither local nor Fair Trade, because that's the side owning and owned by the national and international 'free'-trade corporations. That is not on. One side of US politics opposes the Occupy movement, not because the Occupy movement is going about dealing with economic oppression in a way ignorant of other oppressions, but because the Occupy movement opposes economic oppression. It's like there's a second trolley on the heels of the first, and instead of sending it over the person(s) killed by the first trolley, sending it on the other track. That is not on.

That side is the side that's winning, because the side that takes ethics into consideration is divided on what to prioritize, QUILTBAG rights or women's rights, jobs or the environment, universal health care or making sure our grandchildren aren't paying for the decisions we make today, and how to go about achieving whatever we finally decide to make the number one priority. If we ever do decide. Whether to pick a number one priority is an ethical dilemma in itself, as is what that priority should be if there is one.

G. W. F. Hegel, roughly translated, defines tragedy as the conflict not between good and evil but between two competing goods. Hegel never met contemporary US politics, and contemporary US politics have apparently never met Hegel.

We could all use some more Hegelian tragedy in our lives.

My opinions? We tried TARP and it didn't work, the banks are sitting on the money, so let's try giving money directly to those in need via hiring them—a government job is still a job—and via bailing out those with underwater and not-much-above-water mortgages. We can't afford lowering taxes on the upper middle class and up right now, and it's not like the military-industrial complex isn't a jobs program. Contribute small amounts to many charities—philanthroper.com is excellent for charitable crowdfunding. Join Occupy and stand up for the people Occupy helps to oppress in hopes that Occupy will collectively stop oppressing them us. Minimize carbon emissions now in the countries that already produce lots of same, while educating lots of people, especially from industrializing and unindustrialized nations, in the ways of green energy and manufacturing. And, uh, M&Ms from Walmart. Though I did specifically request Fair Trade chocolates for Christmas sparkle season gift exchange day. What about you?

The Slacktiverse is a community blog. Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors. We welcome disagreement in the comment threads, and invite anyone who wishes to present an alternative interpretation of a situation to write and submit a post.

149 Comments

Ok, I've read a lot of the literature on the net, and been down to Zuccotti park, and I understand that there have been some. . . well, less then stellar examples of humanity involved with OWS, but. . . who exactly is OWS oppressing?

Ethics are indeed hard! I run into this because my work does a lot of China-related education, and people's opinions of China and the Chinese government are so wildly divergent. Watching the Chinese government's human rights abuses and work on desertification and solar energy and the Chinese people's work lifting themselves out of poverty even if the jobs they use are crappy jobs assembling iPads... do you want the factory to leave, because it's a soulkilling exploiter, or stay, because money is money and it's not like you're working at the soulkilling factory because you really don't want to go with the nice job down the street.

Rowen: In my experience and that of everyone I've seen writing about it, Occupy is very white and rather male, and women and people of color have been trying to get Occupy as a whole to realize that it's not the 99% without women and people of color, but to quote the Angry Black Woman, "We’ve learned from slavery, Jim Crow, Tulsa, Rosewood, the Red Summer of 1919, the Watts riots, the Civil Rights Movement, & America’s belief in the lie of the Welfare Queen that we cannot trust in people who are not explicitly anti-racist." And to quote Shakespeare's Sister, "if your revolution doesn't implicitly and explicitly include a rejection of misogyny and other intersectional marginalizations, then you're not staging a revolution: You're staging a change in management."

This is not to say that Occupy does not have women (obviously it does; hi) or people of color (again, it does), nor to say that Occupy is not trying to deal with the racism and misogyny in its ranks (it is). Occupy is not in fact doing badly on these issues. But it's not doing well, either.

It's really interesting to me how the signs are completely different from the signs I know, yet just as intuitive.

I liked learning the Auslan signs for things that seemed totally random until our teacher explained them - like "man" and "woman" (signs resembling a beard, and someone putting on blush) or "want" and "don't want" (signs resembling food going to the stomach, or else being vomited up again)...

I can't help but wonder how much of that image is a product of the media. For starters, OWS is MEANT to not have a leader. It's one of the main criticisms of it. So, if there ARE fewer people of color out there, I wonder how much of it is OWS not making a safe space and how much is, well, people just complaining (There's GOT to be a better way to put it, but I can't think of one. . . Basically, someone who is going to complain or have an issue, but refuses to step up to the plate.)

The reason why I say this is because I've been down there a few times. It's pretty welcoming, and I did see a lot of diverse people. Even more so during the March on Wall Street a few weeks ago, which was VERY diverse. Of course, the only people who get shown on TV are a few trustafarians and then I have to spend even MORE energy to defend OWS from people complaining about drum circles. Furthermore, Occupy Philadelphia had a very large number of people of color, from what little I could see.

I say all this cause I see a lot, "I saw this one thing in the media, and therefore everyone involved in OWS is a rapist/racist/hippy!" and, to me, that's kind of like saying all atheists or pagans are something, because you saw something in the news.

ASL is roughly the same age as Tok Pisin, and therefore many of the signs are still iconic. Linguistic drift, over time, will change that. Languages become more complicated, less regular, over time. Tok Pisin still has a fairly simple grammar, with few exceptions, and compound words which have a meaning transparently derived from their base elements. Give it a few more generations, and that'll change, just as ASL and other signed languages will gradually become less iconic.

ASL's main ancestor is Old French SL, which is why it has a one-handed alphabet (Auslan, by contrast, descends from Old British SL, and has the two-handed alphabet of that family (Auslan, BSL, and NZSL are the three main languages in that family). My mother is an interpreter in Irish SL (also descended from Old French SL), and I've picked up a bit. I find the grammar fascinating, and would love to learn more.

***

I generally find the ethical puzzles given in good literature to be more thought-provoking than the little snippets you get in philosophy class. "The ones who walk away from Omelas" is a story which will stay with me. The scary thing is that we, in the West, live in Omelas.

The whole 'which food companies to boycott' thing gets even more complicated when you add food allergies to the mix. Sometimes the only company that you can get a gluten-free/soy-free/egg-free product from is one you'd rather not support otherwise. (And sometimes the small GF company gets bought up by the ethically troubling big company because they have a profitable product line.)

I try to follow utilitarian/consequentialist ethics, and this makes ethical angst a big part of my life. Some problems, in no particular order:

In most circumstances, splitting money between charities is not the best thing for a consequentialist to do... Finding the most effective charity then becomes an immensely important task... How do you communicate that some charitable interventions are more effective than others, without offending people?... Consequentialism leads me against the flow; I have to get used to being unusual... The best cause for me to be involved in is likely to be something important but also unpopular... I cannot trust my future self to be as altruistic as I am... I need to have a very detailed and unbiased understanding of how the world works in order to know what the consequences of my actions will be...

Should one support international treaties to reduce carbon emissions, thus protecting the environment, or should one support international efforts to bring everyone up to the same standard of living, thus reducing privilege? One could support both, but how to industrialize nations without dumping mountains of soot into the air?

Well...I would say protecting the environment is (at least) strictly superior up to the point where the minimal necessary environmental quality is achieved (that is, you want to make sure that the Earth is still, y'know, inhabitable before you worry about quality of life since it's no good to have a million bucks if you're dead). After that, you need to balance the standard of living benefits of a healthy environment against the standard of living benefits of increased industrialization.

I would also note that there are very sound reasons to avoid the "dumping soot in air" model of industrialization at this point which are completely tied to (future) "standard of living" concerns and not so much to environmental concerns.

I think it's also important to remember that your emotional capital is a valuable and important resource. Sometimes it is better to give your money to an adequate charity than to spend a lot of effort finding a perfect one. Sometimes it is better to wince and buy the non-organic veggies so that you have some personal time to recharge and recuperate. It's no use to anyone if you burn out.

Some of the bitterest anti-environmentalists and anti-philanthropists I know are people who burned themselves out trying to solve the world's problems. They held themselves to an unattainable standard, and when they crashed, they crashed hard.

Ethics may be hard. But some ethics questions are easier than others. In particular, the Occupy question is pretty easy. No movement is going to be able to address all forms of inequality. That's not what movements or organizations are about. They have more than enough trouble having a marginally consistent/coherent message without trying to handle absolutely everything. That a movement has a few assholes in it isn't by itself a reason not to support a cause. Any movement that has grown to more than a handful of people will have a few stupid assholes.

(I'm not actually sure what my stance is on the Occupy movement, but I think this is clearly not a good reason not to support.)

Not a lot I can add to anything yous said .. hehe .. I agree, as usual :)

-----------------------

That aside - the post itself.

On OWS and diversity, from my understanding a lot of the diversity criticisms are media sensationalisation and derision.

I've sat for many hours watching live feeds and you can see the diversity. Sure, there are a lot of young white males but ... of course there are. Who is more able to 'be there' than someone with privilege.

The very fact that there are more young white men there is a visible marker of how embedded privilege is. They can get there easier (transport affordability and access); stay there easier (less pressures re work - a lot of students and professors there) and speak from a cultural framework 'understood' by others of privilege - ergo, the message reaches those that matter, not the extremes of privilege (as they, you know, sort of have a clue already) but those in the middle, many of which have know privilege and are being exposed to its vararies for the first time - to a degree that resonates.

More importantly .... look at how they've changed the national dialogue. They don't need a central message beyond 'Notice this!' ... and they've succeeded. Where the conversation was pretty much ALL about the deficit and now is about the income and wealth inequities that intersect with a whole lot of other issues of privilege.

It's so easy to criticise along lines of "Oh - but they are mostly privileged ... so what would they know about 'us'" ... but that rings hollow - because they, whatever their privilged status, are fighting for those without.

It's also easy to argue (and I've seen this) that is anyone unprivileged who has a complaint shuld JOIN the movement. Of course - that assumes it is easy for them, with their life situation, to do so.

Things are easy to attack at the level of superficialities ... but the reality is usually far more complicated.

The problem at occupy is the same problem women and people of color run in to constantly when dealing with white men.
They dismiss you and cut you off. They interrupt you and dominate the discussion. Same as in almost any meeting. Most of the women I talked to who went were treated like servants, put to work in the kitchen and the information kiosks, or pieces of meat, or both. The usual stuff.
The reason it matters is that they went hoping they would be considered part of the 99%. When they were not, many of them left. Many of them now go down to help out, but not to stay.

scared in ASL is you make a motion which calls to mind clutching your chest in fear (left fist hand palm facing chest starting location left side of chest. right hand same but on the right. both hands move towards each other ending in a splayed hand shape (5 hand) palms still facing chest, one hand higher than the other), whereas in HSL the signs resemble a person "standing and quaking in fear" (in front of your chest: left hand flat palm facing up. right hand palm facing chest, index and middle finger "standing" on your left hand, with a shaking motion)

Interesting. In British baby sign, which is derived from BSL, you hold your right hand open over your heart and wobble it back and forth, as if you're demonstrating that your heart is racing.

Baby sign is very useful even if the baby doesn't have disabilities or complications. My son, who's pretty much the textbook 'normal/healthy' baby, will consistently hand over whatever he's playing/messing with when I ask him to, and a big reason for that is he enjoys the combination of spoken and signed 'Thank you!' that it gets him. Saves an awful lot of conflict!

Yeah .. we've all (aka, Pthalo, Hannah, Joshua and myself) discussed, and quickly decided, to teach all our kids sign from very infantness. One, it's important to get more hearing people knowing sign. Two, it helps development a lot (see the studies, very impressive) and three, it'll be good for the CAPD of lovies.

@thebewilderness

Yeah. That's the problem with not posting specifics. In my case, I've mostly followed the feeds of the Wall St Occupy. I can't speak about other places, because I don't have any info.

From what I've seen of the Occupy Wall St group though, well, I've seen a mixed of genders crewing the food stations et al. I was also impressed by their meeting protocols. People make points (or rebut them) in reverse order of privilege. So, women, gays, transgender, race minorities and so on, they all get to speak first. The young-white-men ... always go last. Impressive.

In the interests of not taking undeserved credit for skills I do not possess, I should add that I don't actually know BSL. (I wish I did; the little I've seen of it strikes me as very interesting and rather cool.) I take my boy to a weekly 'Sing and Sign' class where we learn some basic signs like 'Thank you', 'No', 'Change your nappy', 'Tired', 'Milk' and so on. I know a few dozen words in baby-sign, but hey, every little helps.

The thing about ethics for me, and I think I've touched on this recently both here and at Fred's place, is that there's a very long history of ethics and morality being devised as a way to justify screwing someone.

I believe that humans are for the most part basically good at least insofar as wanting to avoid causing harm.

But some problems are ethically dicey, and, as Hegel would say, we've got competing goods. Help the poor, or help me and mine attain a more comfortable lifestyle. Help the oppressed or feed your children. Work for a socially responsible employer, or experience job security. Run over the guy on the tracks, or send the trolley to its doom.

And because we are basically good (at least insofar as wanting to avoid causing harm), there is a very strong drive, when we are compelled by competing goods, to cause harm, to find a way to recast it as not-harm. I chose lower tax rates for myself over social programs to help the poor, so I'm motivated to believe that I'm a Job Creator, who, despite the fact that my actions have concrete negative consequences for real people, will ultimately Trickle Down Wealth all over the faces of the less fortunate. I choose to invade an oil-rich country because I've got a beef with their leader, I'm motivated to believe that I'm going to "liberate" his poor oppressed people, even if I have to kill quite a lot of them in the process. (Example rot13 for TW: Abortion) Vs V jnag gb cebgrpg srghfrf ng nyy pbfgf, V'ir tbg n fgebat zbgvingvba gb svaq fbzr jnl gb fnl gung jbzra nera'g dhvgr uhzna be gb pbaivapr zlfrys gung nyy jbzra jub frrx nobegvbaf ner funzrshy fyhgf jub qrfreir gb unir gurve evtugf gnxra njnl, naq jbzra jub unir yvsr-guerngravat pbzcyvpngvbaf whfg qba'g Jnag Vg Onq Rabhtu. And while all my go-to examples are right-wing policies, the left can do it too. If I want to use policy to try to force people to become vegetarian locavores, I'm strongly motivated to answer people who say "Yeah, but I can't eat starch or gluten, and the stuff that grows locally doesn't include all the things I need to get a well-balanced diet that won't kill me," by claiming that their diabetes or gluten intollerance or food allergies are things they brought on themselves through bad behavior and if they would just follow MY miracle diet, they'd be magically cured.

And as a general rule, if your decision is going to require killing someone -- even killing someone to save someone else -- there's a very strong motivation to find some reason that the person getting killed *deserves* to die, or *isn't really a person*. That example with which MercuryBlue started us off, most times you see it brought up, it's not long before folks try to qualify it. What if the person tied to the tracks is a child? What if the trolley is full of convicted criminals. What if the trolley is full of unwed mothers and the person on the tracks is an illegal immigrant? What if the trolley is full of poor people and it's a rich person tied to the tracks?

When confronted with "we have no choice but to shaft someone," Almost every ethical system, whatever its other merits, at some point includes a certain facility to say either "No, really the person who seems to be getting shafted isn't really," or "Yeah, but that person *deserved* it."

Ethics are easy for people like me who know everything. ;) Ah, the hubris of the young.

Y'all should watch Celtic Thunder's Storm, in particular the song "When You Are Eighteen".

Reduce carbon emissions or increase standard of living? Um, both, though we may be operating from different perspectives on "standard of living". To me an increased standard of living, one to strive for, is one in which everyone has access to clean water and food and medical care, earns enough money to have all of their needs met and some of their wants. Not one in which everyone has an ipod.

Hell with the iPod. There are people trying to survive on less than 2 USD a day.

1. Saying, 'I've been to an OWS and it seemed real nice' does not invalidate the experiences that several people have had of entrenched racism and sexism within some of the organizing groups. It's good that you've had good experiences, and it's good to want to share them. But sharing those experiences in the context of an discussion about some of the Fail currently existing in the cause can sound like an argument against the Fail, and "my personal experience" is not an argument against someone else's personal experience. I think that's something to remember. :)

2. Saying, 'no movement addresses everything' can be a very sore spot with people, and rightly so, because that argument has been frequently used as an excuse to continue the oppression of other groups. It's a statement from a position of power, and it's a statement that does not engender a strong sense of ally-ship, because the position essentially boils down to saying that POCs, women, etc. should donate their time and attention to helping make the world a better place for you (and everyone!) but you don't have to donate the time and attention to help make the world a better place for them (and everyone!). And this is a point that bears repeating: movements that aren't explicitly and deliberately anti-sexist and anti-racist probably aren't either. Unfortunately. :(

I'm a supporter of OWS, but I've also been following a lot of these problems via Shakesville and... the problems are problematic. I don't know if they can be solved, but they definitely exist. :(

I also think, that to a large extent it is inevitable that there will be issues that are nearer and dearer to our hearts than others. For example, cancer research is really important for obvious reasons and we all want to end cancer. And making sure everyone on the planet has access to potable water is also really important for obvious reasons.

Hence the necessity of disagreement.

I can't help but wonder how much of that image is a product of the media. For starters, OWS is MEANT to not have a leader. It's one of the main criticisms of it. So, if there ARE fewer people of color out there, I wonder how much of it is OWS not making a safe space and how much is, well, people just complaining (There's GOT to be a better way to put it, but I can't think of one. . . Basically, someone who is going to complain or have an issue, but refuses to step up to the plate.)

In most circumstances, splitting money between charities is not the best thing for a consequentialist to do... Finding the most effective charity then becomes an immensely important task... How do you communicate that some charitable interventions are more effective than others, without offending people?

With difficulty.

I haven't encountered the term 'consequentialist' before; could you explain?

My opinion is that one gets the most bang for the buck by treating neglected tropical diseases. Leprosy, elephantiasis, couple of fun parasites, and treating the lot for one person for one year costs one dollar. But I find that I cannot devote all my charitable giving to the Global Health Council for said treatment, because there are so many other causes with respectable bang for the buck where the problems hit nearer, literally or figuratively, to home.

Not being a person of color and not knowing very many of same, I have no way of finding out.

If I want to use policy to try to force people to become vegetarian locavores, I'm strongly motivated to answer people who say "Yeah, but I can't eat starch or gluten, and the stuff that grows locally doesn't include all the things I need to get a well-balanced diet that won't kill me," by claiming that their diabetes or gluten intollerance or food allergies are things they brought on themselves through bad behavior and if they would just follow MY miracle diet, they'd be magically cured.

Which is why evidence-based reasoning should be a part of every ethical decision.

And as a general rule, if your decision is going to require killing someone -- even killing someone to save someone else -- there's a very strong motivation to find some reason that the person getting killed *deserves* to die, or *isn't really a person*. [...]

When confronted with "we have no choice but to shaft someone," Almost every ethical system, whatever its other merits, at some point includes a certain facility to say either "No, really the person who seems to be getting shafted isn't really [a person]," or "Yeah, but that person *deserved* it."

I am having uncomfortable thoughts about abortion now. Because pro-choice types, myself included, by and large literally say fetuses aren't people. Which there's very good reason to say, because if personhood begins at implantation then every miscarriage has to be treated like a murder, but.

Argh this whole thing just makes me anxious. I have to come at it from a more positive direction, e.g. "I have this much money/time, so I will seek out X, Y, and Z organizations that are all really awesome, and then support some or all of them based on logistical considerations." That way it's an empowering way of living my values instead of one more thing to fail at. In theory, anyway.

Ana, thank you - that thing you said about "can't address all causes" was exactly what I wanted to say.

There is a long and ugly history of "help us get OUR thing done, and when it's done we'll help you get YOUR thing done," and the latter never happening. (See the reason that most political (not numerical) minorities keep using the phrase "thrown under the bus.")

I haven't encountered the term 'consequentialist' before; could you explain?

A consequentialist is someone who believes the morality of an action depends on its results. As my old ethics teacher put it, if you punch a random stranger because you're in a sadistic mood and don't exercise impulse control, a deontologist would say you did something wrong, full stop. A consequentialist would say that if the person, completely unpredicted by you, drops a gun when punched and you find out you just prevented a murder, you did something good, and why you did it doesn't matter. (Of course, few people are all consequentialist or all deontologist.)

We had this discussion with different words awhile back with divine justice and how it should work. I should find that link; I think it was a Narnia thread. We did have a strict consequentialist weigh in on that, if I recall correctly.

I get what you're saying, however, I feel like a lot of the news items I've read on OWS IS stuff like what you're saying. I have a friend who posted on one of the last big marches, and in the article she linked to, the reporter mentioned how one person was passing out leaflets and this scared someone's kid, and suddenly, both in the article and my friend's reaction was OMG! OWS IS TERRORIZING CHILDREN!!!

OWS has made a point of not having a leader or a main focus point. I kinda feel like condemning the entire movement based on a few assholes is kinda like . . . well, condemning the entire pagan movement because of fluffy bunnies. That's not to say that there aren't problems that need to be addressed. Only, I really feel like this is starting to go into 'splaining territory (I really don't want to down play the fact that people at OWS have done some really bad stuff, nor do I want to belittle people's reactions, like the Angry Black Woman blog owner . . . so I'm gonna stop here, for now).

. If you abhor Walmart for its practices but you cannot afford to shop anywhere else, then shop at Walmart. Do what you have to survive. Other people can boycott Walmart. It's not your fault that they're the only store in your area that sells food you can afford.

And sometimes ethics get even harder.

Because I can't boycott Wal-mart for my local family-owned business; Wal-mart IS my local family-owned business. I choose to shop as much as possible at the farmer's market and the co-ops, and for the most part at the OTHER Big National Chain that competes here locally yet is based far away.

Yet here Wal-Mart is the major supplier for the food banks and the community closets; Wal-Mart supports the free health clinic and the animal shelter. Beyond meeting basic needs, the Walton Foundation has done amazing things to nurture my community. At my library, they have funded the entire Children's Department and most of our Spanish and English-As-A-Second-Language collection. They sponsor concerts, plays, international cultural events, constructed a world-class art museum with free admission to all in a region where exposure to the arts is not only uncommon and unaffordable, but regarded with suspicious hostility.

And it isn't just charity. Yes, the Great Recession hit here too, but still our unemployment rate is far lower than the rest of the nation, and that's mostly due to the success of Wal-Mart and affiliated industries (e.g., chicken processing, trucking). Wal-Mart has poured money into developing and testing green technologiehas and propping up local organic and sustainable businesses. The economy driven by the Wal-Mart engine keeps my library doors open, and has made our K-12 schools and even (some departments of) our university nationally competitive.

Wal-Mart is ultimately responsible for my children's education and best chances for the future, not to mention my paycheck, and spouse's paycheck, that make it financially possible for me to boycott their stores in favor of much higher priced goods.

Rowen, what I'm hearing you say is that we shouldn't be wary of men at bars because of the actions of the very few men at bars with rohypnol. We have to be wary of men at bars because we don't have any way of knowing which ones have rohypnol. It's a survival mechanism. From what Angry Black Woman says, being wary of white people is a survival mechanism for people of color. We shouldn't have to be wary, yes, but Occupy has rapists and the Hot Chicks of Wall Street jackass as well as the people organizing safe spaces for women to sleep at Occupy events. So some women cannot trust that Occupy is anti-sexist until Occupy proves itself anti-sexist, and for similar reasons some people of color cannot trust that Occupy is anti-racist until Occupy proves itself anti-racist.

And the only way Occupy is going to get less sexist and racist is if sufficient numbers of women, people of color, and their white and/or male allies join the movement and start making noise. Ethical dilemma again: does one risk one's own well-being to attempt to ensure the well-being of people including oneself?

hapax, have I mentioned that I'd love to (do your taxes, bake you cookies, draw you a picture) some day? Because you're awesome, that's why.

Rowen, I definitely see your point, and I don't think anyone's condemning the entire movement because of its bad apples. More like people are asking for those bad apples to be called out, rather than supported; people are asking for the movement to be improved, not banished. At least, that's what I've been seeing! Do link, if you're seeing something different? I'd be interested in reading it.

Yes, probably one person on earth has over-reacted about something having to do with OWS. That happens. And I totally understand being frustrated about that -- that's normal. :)

But that is not what we are talking about. You said upthread that you weren't aware of issues with OWS, and that's not your fault. But now we are telling you about the issues, because you asked. Here are issues:

Women are being assaulted at OWS locations. You haven't personally witnessed that, and that's great! And you would probably step in and do something if you saw it happening, and that's great, too. :)

But it IS happening. And what has happened -- on more than one occasion -- is that the larger movement has been so blase about STOPPING sexual assault, that the members who were concerned had to call the police.

Yes. The police had to be called in to stop sexual assault because the larger group wasn't willing or able to ask the assaulter to leave. There is irony here, but it is sad irony. :(

This isn't an issue of "oh, there's no leader, it's designed that way". It's larger than that. There's an issue that a lot of the men in OWS happen to be sexist and a lot of the white people in OWS happen to be racist, and 1% of those people are saying and doing sexist and racist things that make the place not a safe space for women and POC and the other 50%+ of those people are looking the other way and not willing to effectively call out the 1% because that would be 'hurting the movement' or something equally cover-up-y.

That doesn't mean that anyone is bad for supporting OWS. But we're also allowed to call out that behavior and to call it out against the community *as a whole* because it's the community *as a whole* that is failing to address these issues because addressing these issues means confronting ones own privilege.

It's uncomfortable to look around and realize that some of one's ally's have Sex- and Race-Fail. But while I think it's an understandable impulse to say "oh, they aren't us, they're just some jerks," the problem is much deeper than the 1% of jerks who assault women. The problem is the 50%+ jerks who look the other way when it happens.

It's Rape Culture, but it's Rape Culture specifically within OWS, and we can't pretend it's not there. As much as I would personally like to. :)

You said it yourself. OWS HAS been trying to provide safe places for woman to sleep at their events. Yet, it's an open public space with no leadership and no rules, and even so, the rules have recently changed due to Zuccotti park being closed.

And, well, I think what's also getting me is that the times I've been down and participated, there WERE a lot of women and people of color, and their allies and friends there. I wonder if places like Shakesville have also been down there, and thus are seeing something that I'm not, or if their information is being filtered by the media.

Ok, I'd like to just come to a full stop here and point out that I am in no way condoning rape culture, even though I can tell that some of my statements are starting to go that way.

I understand what you guys are saying. Bad shit is happening, but I'm not seeing the same laisez faire attitude that I feel is being presented. Or at least, I am coming across accounts of the protestors working to create female only spaces and create networks to make sure that that doesn't happen.

And of course, this would be the time when we have two meetings going on in the office and lunch is happening and my google-fu is failing me. So, I'm going to step back, take a few deep breaths, reread some of the posts and mentally sort this out before coming back.

Rowen, I'm not trying to argue with you, so maybe I should step away, too. I personally feel like some of your posts on this topic seem to be normalizing your own experiences and -- in the nicest possible way -- dismissing experiences not like yours as over-reactions from misinformation in the media.

I *can* state that many, many members of the Shakesville community have been involved in the OWS movements, and that the Shakesville community in general base their statements on "the media" as little as you do -- they're responding to their experiences and their friends' experiences, and not ZOMG MEDIA PANIC. :)

I'm glad that you've had many positive experiences with OWS trying to make the movement a safer place. That's a good thing, and I think it's what we ALL want. :)

After repeated incidents and failed intervention attempts by Occupy Wall Street's security team, the protesters finally went to the NYPD for help in removing Park, according to Paul Isaac, a member of the security team.

My point about Rape Culture at large is that this...

As a second resort, Chilligan and others said they also publicly draw attention to the people who are breaking Occupy Wall Street's ground rules, to use the force of public opinion to change people's behavior.

...would kind of be standard practice in a society/movement that openly does not support the harassment of women. :)

@Rowen: And, well, I think what's also getting me is that the times I've been down and participated, there WERE a lot of women and people of color, and their allies and friends there. I wonder if places like Shakesville have also been down there, and thus are seeing something that I'm not, or if their information is being filtered by the media.

A number of things spring to mind.

a) there is a truckload of psych studies that indicate that when someone who isn't part of minority/disempowered group says that they say "a lot" of such -- well it doesn't actually mean that there were "a lot" -- just more than one is used to seeing.

So, for example, I have been told that there are "a lot" of women in Congress. Or that there "a lot" of female judges these days. What "a lot" means is "more than I have been used to seeing."

b) and their allies and friends there how do you know that they are allies and friends. And according to whom? You? Or the women/minorities themselves?

c) Shakesville isn't a "place" it is a collective of individual people. Some of them women, some men, some people who are QUILTBAGS, some people of colour. Some of them have been to many of the Occupy sites. Some of them know many people who have been part of the occupy movement.

d) I (like other people on this board) have actually been to places where people who claimed to be my "allies" failed to see the ways in which I was disrespected and endangered. Rape culture is part of privilege culture -- those who have privilege seldom see it.

a) there is a truckload of psych studies that indicate that when someone who isn't part of minority/disempowered group says that they say "a lot" of such -- well it doesn't actually mean that there were "a lot" -- just more than one is used to seeing.

How many of us WOMEN in the Bechdel thread went:

I have a LOT of women in my story. Way more than the men. Hold on... um... carry the 5... Huh. I have... ONE more women than men in my story. How the heck did that happen?

Including myself. I was like, "OK, well, let me think. I KNOW I have more women than men. Let's see... Bella, Venizia, Fiorita, Marchetta, that's 4. Cienzo, Ezio, Guerrino, Flavio... that's... 4. Rosella is a 5th woman, but she's really more of a force of nature... and Flavio isn't a point-of-view character like the rest, but still...

It was a shock to realize that my TOTES WOMAN NOVEL was actually pretty 50/50. o.O

Just a quick note about "students can more easily protest, this helps explain OWS's male preponderance". While the stereotypical college student remains male, the actual students at US colleges are more than half female. (A possible economic explanation: the disparity between male and female pay means that women need more education to attain the same standard of living.)

The University of Washington Occupy-support march I attended had both men and women among the organizers but was probably much more than half male.

It is really dangerous, though, to try to estimate the gender mix of a crowd on the fly. There is an extremely widespread perceptual bias that causes a group of 2/3 men to look like 50/50. I convinced myself that I have this bias by repeatedly estimating and then counting people in buses and on subways. When I have asked other people to try the experiment they usually come to the same conclusion.

The report by the American Council on Education comes amid much talk nationally about the significance of trends that have left men making up only about 43 percent of college enrollments and new college graduates. Gender Gap Stops Growing

I want to apologize if I've been coming across as mansplaing, victim blaming or endorsing rape culture. I've been going over the information and want to thank Ana for giving me some sort of benefit of the doubt.

@Ana Mardoll: It was a shock to realize that my TOTES WOMAN NOVEL was actually pretty 50/50.

Well, one could make an argument that your novel explored the ways in which the balance of social and cultural pressures work to isolate women. And the ways in which, since almost all power is held by men, that women trying to negotiate with power are forced to concentrate their thoughts on predicting how men (or at least A man) will react to them.

And....Rosella is a force of nature, yes. And like many females figures who have some degree of power she can be said to be a force in the continued oppression of women. Rosella KNOWS exactly how Ezio will respond to the curse, she KNOWS that his actions will endanger at least one other woman and she feels no regret for those actions.

She might be described as interrogating patriarchy while still internalizing some of its worldview.

Well, one could make an argument that your novel explored the ways in which the balance of social and cultural pressures work to isolate women.

There is that! And it does at least pass the Bechdel test in a few places, so I was glad to note that. And yet, it's just kind of a shock... as a woman... to think "the women out-number the men in my novel" and then count up and realize that, well, they only kind-of sort-of do. Barely.

In my 'defense', I never intended to use Flavio past the second chapter and I only grudgingly gave him a name, but later he was the most convenient route from Point A to Point B so he re-emerged. Odd how characters will do that.

If I'd stuck with the For Reals Beauty and the Beast story, I would have had to give Bella two or three brothers, and that *definitely* would have put women in the minority. I think I struck them as being irrelevant, rather than for feminist reasons of wanting a large female cast, but I can't remember for sure.

Do you ever get to the end of a comment and realize you've derailed your own comment? I'm so unfocused today, I swear. o.O

(See, another ethical dilemma: whether to reward allies for being allies or to expect allies to be allies without need of reward.)

That's a good question, and I'd love to see a post on that. I'm EXTREMELY pro-cookies, because I'm afraid that negativity sticks with us and we need lots of positivity to stay motivated. So I cookie maybe too much, but... well, I'll give an example.

We had a big Vice President Speaks To Us meeting at my company awhile back. He's an older white man in a company that's largely white and male and kind of old, and he came out -- like this was SUCH A NEW THING -- and said that LGBT people are welcome at this company and should not be harassed and we're going to be sensitive to that, mmkay?

I mean, not fiery stuff. But you could tell it was new to HIM, and he even made a point of mentioning that his daughter had gotten through to him on this issue. (Go VP's daughter!) And the VERY FIRST QUESTION after this hour-long meeting of all kinds of company stuff was an older white dude saying -- in a tone I did not like -- "Am I going to get walked out the door for saying I disagree with homosexuality?"

Because we TOTALLY walk people out the door for sexism and racism and OH WAIT NO WE DON'T. *sigh* It was SUCH a frustrating question. And the VP kind-of was like, "Well, no, c'mon. Geez."

Afterward, I went to my desk and thought about cookies. I don't really think our VP is the best ally in the world. I don't think he ever will be. But I know he's going to get negativity over this statement of him and I don't want him to back away from it. So I wrote the VP of our company an email saying how proud I was of him for doing the right thing and that I appreciated what he'd said. I cookie'd him for a very tepid statement that we weren't going to harass people at our company for their sexual orientation.

I don't know if that was the right thing to do, but I think it was the right thing to do for me. But I'd love to see a post on the subject. I know a lot of people are anti-cookie and have good reasons for being so.

It was a shock to realize that my TOTES WOMAN NOVEL was actually pretty 50/50.

I found that that sort of shock sets in for me because I wasn't considering the antagonists. In the things I've written, protagonists and allies trend toward a very rough balance, but antagonists tend to be overwhelmingly male. I seem to have a hard time writing female characters in antagonist roles.

I found that that sort of shock sets in for me because I wasn't considering the antagonists. In the things I've written, protagonists and allies trend toward a very rough balance, but antagonists tend to be overwhelmingly male. I seem to have a hard time writing female characters in antagonist roles.

I've noticed this happens to me a fair bit as well, although the most prominent Representative of Antagonism in my NaNovel so far is a woman (Ambassador Perrine of the hey-have-we-tried-being-an-empire-lately nation of Lefele). The not-yet-revealed really blatant villain is a dude, and then in the rough sketch I have of a sequel the primary villain would also be a dude, and in the sci-fi concept I have kicking around I haven't developed the antagonists much but I'm thinking Dude, and in the Internet Ghost Story story the villainous ghost is also Spectral Dude.

I suspect this is because in my life I've been antagonised by vastly more males than females, so I have a perception bias that the majority of villainously-inclined people in the world are male. But even if that were true, it wouldn't automatically mean all of my antagonists should be male (especially if I am often trying to portray worlds with much weaker gender roles/bias).

I think, due to significant density of walk-on roles in the latest chapter (police sergeant and some corporals, woman looking for her daughter, etc) the number of named female characters might have... nope, just did another quick name-count and the genders are keeping pace at a 50-50 split. Women definitely have more dialogue, but the unweighted population is still even.

This is not really an ethical dilemma, but a temptation to, er, bend the law.

I have to spend my WIC checks before they expire, but they include items we don't eat, don't eat that much of, etc. So I feel like just spending them and sticking the stuff straight into the food pantry donation box. As it is, something similar ends up happening as we cycle stuff through our personal pantry, but it just seems like such a frustrating waste.

This is the time of year many worthy causes come to my attention, and of course my income will be cut off right in time for that. Our Yule gifts and such are all bought, and YuleBaby's birthday presents, too, but I feel like I can't be in the true holiday spirit without supporting stuff that's important. And I could support some causes with my time, except that child-free time is at a premium, and is basically really expensive.

I guess I could do something charitable related to childcare...until it drives me crazier. I sure wish there was some kind of childcare bank/exchange at the foodstamp/welfare office. Not everyone has childcare, and those of us who do would rather not spend it on that when we need it for job hunting. Arrrgh.

I am in a ranty mood, sorry.

Also the Salvation Army bellringers are everywhere and they get on my last nerve because if I am going to give money I can barely afford to charity, it's not going to be to self-righteous bigots who have nothing to offer people like many of my dearly beloved. Grrrr.

I have to spend my WIC checks before they expire, but they include items we don't eat, don't eat that much of, etc. So I feel like just spending them and sticking the stuff straight into the food pantry donation box.

I don't understand why this would be "unethical" at all. Isn't the whole point (in theory) to help feed the needy? Not your fault the WIC items don't meet your individual needs.

But I'm chaotic and should not be looked to for morality advice, perhaps. :)

It is distressing to me that "50/50 representation" feels like "a lot" to so many of us. It IS a lot, in terms of what we're used to getting from the media, but is is NOT a lot in terms of, you know, it actually being a lot. :(

I really feel like you're saying we can't wash the dishes because we have to wash the windows too. I'll wash the windows and you can do the dishes and then they'll both get clean, neh? If that's not what you're saying, please correct me, because I don't want to misunderstand you.

What I'm saying is, if we collectively decide potable water for everyone is more important than cancer research, ain't no money gonna go to cancer research, which is bad.

What I'm saying is, if we collectively decide potable water for everyone is more important than cancer research, ain't no money gonna go to cancer research, which is bad.

Well, and there's the 'spread thin' problem, too. If Cancer needs X resources and Water needs X resources, and everyone collectively has only X resources to give, then, well, problem.

Of course, this isn't something we can ever really know. And it's probably a false dilemma to boot, for at least 3 very good reasons.

My biggest problem is the constant research necessary to keep from supporting evil. For instance, it had not occurred to me until the comment above that the Salvation Army might be problematic. My first thought was to ask why. My second thought was that I need to educate my own dang self and not impinge on people's time. So I need to do that now. Should I start with QUILTBAG issues? That's a common point of failure for a lot of places.

Is Planned Parenthood still good to donate to? I send them checks, and I really hope that's not supporting evil in any way. I also give to the local food bank, but I have no idea if they have Fail, and I'm not sure how to check.

A website of Charity Fail and an HAES-Friendly Doctors Listing are top of my list of Things That Need To Be On The Internet.

Also the Salvation Army bellringers are everywhere and they get on my last nerve because if I am going to give money I can barely afford to charity, it's not going to be to self-righteous bigots who have nothing to offer people like many of my dearly beloved. Grrrr.

This, so very much. And then they look put-upon and guilt trip (or at least some of them do), which ought to be not allowed.

Not to mention that it is exceptionally difficult to pull voices out of the wash of background noise of a big crowd, and some overly-holy jerk is ringing a bell right in your face which makes it worse, and then expecting you to be able to hear them, as if they aren't making a shrill distracting sound or something.

Lonespark - as a fellow WIC user, I say put the food in the donation box. I mean, if you were, hypothetically, to have invited a particular person to your house, you would feed them with WIC purchased food, right? Surely this is the same thing.

WIC is intended to supplement your grocery budget. If part of your grocery budget would be spent on food for the donation bucket, then WIC can help out with that.

If it makes you feel better, one of our local grocery stores ran a deal where, after purchasing something like $350 worth of groceries (over two months or so) you got a free turkey in time for Thanksgiving. We used our WIC cheques exclusively at that store in order to get our free turkey (which we have in the freezer, and will use at Christmas). We also use our WIC cheques in such a way that we get gas points from grocery stores.

My advice, Kit, if you have time and you want my advice, is to keep it up with your son, since you're both enjoying it, and learn more vocabulary words as you go along. :)

We're doing pretty well, thanks, and we're signed up for another term. He made his first sign at me today! I was singing the 'Time to have a bath' song with actions, and as I sang the first line, he signed 'bath' back at me. About as clearly as he talks, which is as you were saying: he was swiping in the right general direction rather than being utterly precise, the same way he says 'Aaaah' when asked 'What does the cat say?' or 'Adju' when asked 'How do we sneeze?', or 'Amamama' when asked 'Who loves you?' (Or 'Who's this?', no matter who you point to. Or 'Who's getting on your nerves?', come to that. He knows I'm Mama and will say it spontaneously to me, and the telephone elicits a 'Dadada' because his dad talks to him on speakerphone, but begin with a 'Who', and you get a 'Mamama' every time. Except this lunchtime, when I asked him 'Who loves you?' and he said cheerfully, 'Obama.' Well, I'm sure Obama would love him if they met, so I'm not going to argue with him...) It's all approximations at this age, great fun to watch develop.

I'm currently encouraging Husband to learn as many signs as possible too. Partly so he can do it with Baby, and partly so I can ask him questions when he's on the phone.

"Am I going to get walked out the door for saying I disagree with homosexuality?"

And you kind of have to wonder--or I did--why the guy thinks he's going to have to say that in the first place. Like, I've been in the workforce a while now, and I can't recall any point at which someone has cornered me and demanded to know my views on homosexuality.

So...guy, are you asking if you'll get walked out the door for responding to "Gary and Steve just got engaged" or "This is my girlfriend, Betty" by saying that you disagree with homosexuality? Because...you should. Because--the fact that you're a bigot aside--passing verbal judgment about your co-workers' personal lives is unprofessional.

Oh Older White Dude: your QUILTBAG co-workers don't respond to your engagement news with "...pfft, like *that'll* last more than a year," or "What is this, your third? How old is she, twenty-one?", presumably. Even if they're thinking that. So if you feel the need to tell people that you disapprove of homosexuality...

Hmm. I'm...not actually sure if I like this term. I'm white, yeah, but I'm Mediterranean, so it doesn't really describe me. *shrugs*

On charities: I tend to donate to local organizations or organizations that I've worked with that I know are doing good things. My roommate works for Habitat for Humanity, so that's a no-brainer, and there's also this shelter I worked at in DC, and this homeless shelter/advocacy organization that I volunteer at now, so...yeah.

From what I can see around here, the Salvation Army employs a lot of low-income and homeless people around the holidays. I have no idea how well they treat their employees, though. The bell-ringers tend not to be jerks about what they're doing. But I also live in a city, so they also sometimes fade into the background, because there's just a lot of stuff going on around you.

Also, pardon me if I'm incoherent. I'm getting over being sick, and I'm still a little in the post-fever haze.

For my NaNo novel, there are three major characters and nine supporting:

Washington, the American player (currently male, may become female in next draft)
Berglund, the American second (currently male, will become female if Washington doesn't)
Ashaz, the Egyptian player (male)
Solvinsky, the Russian player (female)
Razanov, the Russian second (female)
Nolt, the Canadian player (male)
Risibi, the Canadian second (male)
Kim, the South Korean player (female)
Lee, the South Korean second (male)
Holonek, the chess reporter (female)
Royce-Stockton, FIDE president (male)
Yi, the Arbiter (female)

So of the three main characters, all are currently male, but one will change to female in the next draft. I'm also planning on removing Berglund from the point-of-view characters (I think Berglund works better when more mysterious), so depending on how things shake out, both pov characters could be male, or one could be male (Ashaz) and one female (Washington).
The characters overall are currently 7-5 male-female, but after the switch, will be split evenly.
In terms of heroes/villains, Washington, Ashaz, and Razanov are the closest thing the story has to heroes. Solvinsky is neutral, but sympathetic. The Canadian and South Korean teams are villains, as are the FIDE people Royce-Stockton and Yi and the reporter Holonek. Berglund is eventually revealed to be evil. So both groups are pretty evenly split along gender lines. Although I note in retrospect the sheer number of villains in the story. Hmm. Maybe next time I should try to have more nice people.

Abortion: The Salvation Army deplores society's ready acceptance of abortion, which reflects insufficient concern for vulnerable persons, including the unborn. (Psalms 82:3-4)

Alcohol and Drugs: The deliberate misuse of any drugs to induce either oblivion or hallucinatory states is condemned.

Economic Justice: The Salvation Army believes that all people are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and that we are to "love our neighbor as ourselves" (Matthew 22:39). We believe in the sacred freedom and dignity of persons and are committed to the redemption of the world in all its dimensions (physical, spiritual, social, economic and political). We believe that, as God's children, we are called to exercise a clear priority for the least among us (Matthew 25: 31-46).

Euthanasia / Assisted Suicide: The Salvation Army believes that euthanasia and assisted suicide undermine human dignity and are morally wrong regardless of age or disability. The Christian faith puts death into proper perspective as the transition from earthly life to eternal life (2 Timothy 4:6-8).

Gambling: The Salvation Army believes that gambling engages its participants and promoters in an exercise of greed contrary to biblical moral teaching.

Homosexuality: The Salvation Army holds a positive view of human sexuality. Where a man and a woman love each other, sexual intimacy is understood as a gift of God to be enjoyed within the context of heterosexual marriage. However, in the Christian view, sexual intimacy is not essential to a healthy, full, and rich life. Apart from marriage, the scriptural standard is celibacy.

Human Equality: As an international branch of the Christian church, The Salvation Army has been concerned from its inception with the spiritual and social needs of all people, recognizing that all bear the divine image and are equal in intrinsic value.

Marriage: The Salvation Army affirms the New Testament standard of marriage, which is the loving union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Marriage is the first institution ordained by God (Genesis 2:24), and His Word establishes its significance (Matthew 19:4-6).

Pornography: The Salvation Army opposes pornography in all of its forms. We believe that human sexuality is a gift of a loving Creator.

Religious Persecution: The persecution of Christians around the world is a grave concern.

Suicide: Taking one's own life is a denial of life's value, a denial of hope and of the power of God to sustain and bring people through difficult and trying times (2 Corinthians 12:8-10). Suicide is never an acceptable option; we deplore those messages in secular culture that glamorize and promote self-destruction.

---

Almost all of these topics are EXTREMELY complex and I have no idea why they felt the need to codify Their One True Way into a charity organization. Also not a fan of the "QUILTBAGs and atheists need not apply" vibe in several of these.

You already have more women in there than any chess tournament I've ever attended except for the US Women's Championships....okay, that's not quite fair, the US Open and US Junior Open were both huge and probably had as many as ten women among 100+ contestants. But that was decades ago. Maybe things have changed.

Actually, MercuryBlue, I think they're talking about the persecution of Christians outside of the US, at least from what the rest of the post says:

"The persecution of Christians around the world is a grave concern. Salvationists have a particular scriptural responsibility to those who make up the worldwide Body of Christ. The Salvation Army is committed to praying for and upholding our brothers and sisters in Christ who suffer religious persecution.

"Religious persecution of Christians may take the form of denial of the right to worship together in congregate bodies, to speak openly about Christ, to own or carry a Bible, to witness to others, or to raise children in the Christian faith. In other instances, people are denied the freedom to convert to Christianity. In some countries our brothers and sisters are subjected to political suppression and social discrimination, incarceration, torture or murder for their belief."

And you kind of have to wonder--or I did--why the guy thinks he's going to have to say that in the first place. Like, I've been in the workforce a while now, and I can't recall any point at which someone has cornered me and demanded to know my views on homosexuality.

Yes! I wondered this, too. Like we were all banging this guy's door down, begging to know his opinion. And now he wouldn't be able to honestly share it with us. *headdesk*

[[Izzy: And you kind of have to wonder--or I did--why the guy thinks he's going to have to say that in the first place. Like, I've been in the workforce a while now, and I can't recall any point at which someone has cornered me and demanded to know my views on homosexuality.]]

one of our local grocery stores ran a deal where, after purchasing something like $350 worth of groceries (over two months or so) you got a free turkey in time for Thanksgiving.

OMG, our grocery store (Not!Wal-Mart) did this too, and even though I already had a turkey, I thought "might as well get this, I can give it to the soup kitchen."

Well, no, I couldn't. Nor to community meals. Nor to any of the local organizations offering "Open Thanksgiving" or "Thanksgiving baskets."

Not frozen. Not thawed. Not even if I went ahead and cooked it.

Apparently there are very strict laws about the source of food that is given away, the kitchens they are prepared in, the way that the food is stored. All those places would have been happy to take canned or boxed food; some would take fresh fruits or vegetables; one even took leftover baked goods from commercial bakeries (not cookies I might rustle up in my kitchen, however.)

Turkeys -- all poultry, apparently -- however, is RADIOACTIVE. Or something.

Anyways, I asked around among the poor graduate students, the badly paid part-time staff, everybody I could think of. I was just about ready to stand by the side of the road holding up a big placard WANNA FREE TURKEY? when a friend who knew someone who knew someone at the battered woman's shelter placed some calls (I couldn't call them myself, because they very sensibly do not give out their main phone number and location, their public phone number is for assistance only) and placed my poor nekkid birdie on the day before Thanksgiving.

This isn't to criticize any of these organizations, btw. I fully understand, and even support, the regulations they operate under. Sometimes, even charity is hard.

******

Re Sally Annie bellringers -- I give them pocket change, under the Matthew 5:42 principle, but since they are usually otherwise severely underprivileged folks doing a lousy job for little pay, I try to always smile at them and offer to buy them a sandwich or a cup of coffee "since it's a cold day to be standing out here in the wind."

Sometimes they take me up on it, usually they don't. I remember somebody here (was it Lonespark?) who mentioned that they try to keep bags of warm socks handy to give to panhandlers, on the same principle, which I thought was a fantastic idea.

@Pthalo: I guess "pallor" always has had a rather negative connotation for me, so calling myself a "person of pallor" doesn't exactly appeal.

[[hapax: Sally Annie bellringers -- I give them pocket change, under the Matthew 5:42 principle, but since they are usually otherwise severely underprivileged folks doing a lousy job for little pay, I try to always smile at them and offer to buy them a sandwich or a cup of coffee "since it's a cold day to be standing out here in the wind."]]

Yeah, this. Actually, my first association with Salvation Army bell-ringers these days has got to be Improv Everywhere: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40qHb9uFpRI

Whiteness in the USA: Conditional, and don't you forget it. This is something I've been coming to understand slowly. We grudgingly awarded it to the Germans, and later Poles, Italians, etc., and even the Irish...and Arabs/Middle Easterners...and then revoked that...and passing has its own special humiliations...

This is one reason why I've personally sworn off correcting people on terminology, because it's so complicated. I'm actually one of those mythical unicorn people who prefers to be called "female" to "woman" because the term "woman" for me was packed with a lot of baggage I didn't like when I was growing up. And I've been privy to the "what kind of person says 'female' when they mean 'woman'" conversation several times, once as a receiver and other times as an observer, and it makes me a little uncomfortable.

I personally have found that it's problematic to say "such-and-so group doesn't like the term X" because there's always a subset of such-and-so group that does use the term X and it's not right to put words in their mouth for them. (We just had the "witch word" discussion on my blog recently, too, and that was fun. :D)

Of course, I DO think it's perfectly justified to say "Please use X term when you discuss ME." That's personal and should be honored as such. So, if I may, I will try to remember to use QUILTBAG when referring to you, Pthalo, since you say you prefer that; and QUILTBAG person when referring to you, Mercury Blue, since you say you prefer that. :)

And I won't mind even one bit if you call me a witch, since that's a term I claim myself. :)

I've never found most of the trolley dilemmas all that difficult. Like Pthallo (I think), my answer is always, "Which ever harms fewer people." However, I suspect in practice, I'd probably have more difficulties and feel horribly guilty which ever choice I made.